On 24.10.2016 11:51, Mark Linimon wrote:
> Or:
>> - expired, replaced by newer version
> - unfetchable
> - license does not allow anyone to package it
> - author requested(*) removal
>> I have personally removed ports fitting each of these criteria at various
> times. I am sure I am missing some other criterion as well.
>> So, your claim is simply false.
I stand corrected and apologize. Allow me to rephrase my argument:
Technically, the only reasons to remove a port is due to one of the
following reasons:
* continuous failure to build
* expiration, replaced by newer version
* unfetchable
* license does not allow anyone to package it
* author requested(*) removal
None of the above is applicable to jive. Therefore, for purely technical
reasons, it ought to be put back.
> I have personally removed ports fitting each of these criteria at various
> times. I am sure I am missing some other criterion as well.
Yes, I'm sure you could, eventually, think of others -- but, just as
with the above list, none that would apply to jive. It is -- to my
knowledge and yours, evidently -- the very first one removed for a
patently non-technical reason of being "offensive".
Now that we are done with the hairsplitting, and I shall put the port
back as soon as I have a moment -- unless someone else beats me to it.
I'd also like to ask portmgr@ to avoid taking such steps in the future
-- inventing a policy in order to immediately act on it. Though we do
not have a strict separation of powers, portmgr@ is primarily an
executive body -- and should defer "lawmaking" to the wider audience of
committers, however cantankerous we may be.
Portmgr's mandate is to ensure, ports continue to build smoothly despite
changes to the OS and other ports. Policing the contents is a
regrettable overreach (a.k.a. "powergrab").
-mi